Should I say, I re-registered. This is JamesE. I couldn’t remember this account name (I used to actively be on here, then left because I was being stupid and wouldn’t admit it. I did indeed request the other account be removed because it is in violation of the board policy.)
ANYWAYS, Pascal’s Wager in no way proves the rationality of truly believing in Christianty or, even, what this thread is about.
Oh, and in reply to the topic of this thread, yes! Pretending to be a Christian could be very advantageous (even though I would never do such a crime to the Atheist community.)
“If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.”
Methinks YOU didn’t read one of the opening paragraphs.
I don’t know whether my decision to be a believer (or rather the inclination I have to be a believer) is dishonest or not. But, to borrow from William James again, some things become true because one accepts them without proof or even evidence–i.e. the belief that one can do something one has never done before.
For me, deciding to at least try to be a believer has helped me become a better person, to get over myself, to be more accepting of others and even to help people here and there. I’ve also felt on occasion something that seems divine, that gives me peace and courage to get through difficult things.
If my belief is wrong (or if it turns out as you say that my hedging is not enough to earn me eternal life), so be it. I know I’m far from really living Christ’s new law but it hasn’t been posturing. It’s just the best I can do.
I don’t think I would have done better, or as well, without my faith.
I did - try reading for comprehension - in the very post - I cited the DEFINITON for FAITH based on the subject at hand - the ‘Bible and Christianity’ - I even then followed with my REASONING for rational vs irational side of it.
One more time - for clarity - the definitions of
[QUOTE=Dictionary - FAITH]
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dictionary - Rational]
1.agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.being in or characterized by full possession of one’s reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
[/QUOTE]
and the usage of the word REASON in this context is the verb -
[QUOTE= Reason (verb)]
8.to think or argue in a logical manner.
9.to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10.to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
[/QUOTE]
ball is in your court - dude - show how ‘faith’ or ‘Christianity’ is RATIONAL - subject to reason (the verb) and simple logic.
If it is not rational - it is, by definition, ‘irrational’ (not rational).
Or are you, by chance - trying to say that “rational people believe Christianity, therefore it is rational” - because - well, I’ll give you that one - but it is not what the premise of this thread was about when it said that Christianity was ‘irational’. Of course, you’re more likely to say “there, see - the dictionary does not use rational or irrational in the definition, so you’re making it up” - choose whichever suits you best since you wont be able to come up with a RATIONAL arguement for Christianity.
(hint - there’s your escape hatch - you were meaning ‘rational’ in an entirely different sense - go, run with it, enjoy the masturbatory victory)
raindog, You’re obviously the one having an issue comprehending Pascal’s Wager. Both Czarcasm and I both are disagreeing with you on rather obvious points, and you’re telling us we don’t understand it. Pascal’s Wager is NOT the bible, you can’t just take the words “I am God’s Son” and turn it into “Jesus is God” like people do with the bible. That Wiki entry is not a bunch of non-literal sentences. It is quite literal.
Why don’t YOU take a turn and quote something that PROVES the rationality in believing in Christianity? You’re just going 'round and 'round with a bunch of nonsense while insulting other poster’s ability to comprehend simple sentences.
You really have trouble with reading for comprehension - but, as predicted - I figured you would take the escape hatch - need 5 mins to finish your ‘celebration’?
I don’t think you understand Pascal’s Wager, or at least it looks that way. When you state “It states very early that reason removes religion”, and you quote the one passage that is most damaging to your [apparent] position, it seems like you don’t quite understand. I mean no harm.
He didn’t believe one could rely solely on reason, but he was quite clear that one’s religion would be absurd without it. Do you read differently?
The absurdity of your posts, and the rabid, senseless Abbott & Costello atheism that I’m hearing, is that his whole treatise was built on his reasonings. Scholars of all stripes have been debating Pascal’s Wager for centuries, and it is the foundation, in part, for everything to game theory to probability theory, and it is an irrational piece of work?
Is Ashton Kutcher hiding in my closet? C’mon, tell me.
No, Ashton Kutcher is not hiding in your closet. He is hiding in a fictitious closet that I am going to refer to as “Being a homosexual but not being public about it.”
Anyway, besides the fact that your question sounds nice and, yes, goes along with Pascal’s Wager, it essentially means nothing.
Anyway, stop questioning my reading comprehension. If I don’t understand it, guess what? That’s not the issue here.
YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS LOGICAL/RATIONAL/WHATEVER.
It’s possible that I have a reading comprehension problem. Please type a bit slower, as that helps.
But we’ll start with one thing at a time. You seem to building a case on “facts”----like the definition of faith-----and it just seems to me that if the premise is wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those premises are likely wrong.
Just give me the definition of faith, and we’ll proceed.
